It is my opinion that alignments be completely eradicated and replaced with "motivations" and "personality" and perhaps some "personal goals". Doing this does involve some well thought out backgrounds and character descriptions as well as opening up lots of role-playing opportunities...
and it models "actuality" accurately...
...
...that alignments be completely eradicated and replaced with "motivations" and ...
...
... replaced ...
Didn't read the thread, huh?
But I think that more detailed would be better. Within reason, I mean; I don't want a whole chapter on alignments, but I think more than two paragraphs per axis is called for.I think that actually less details would make it better to understand. Alignment traits are extremely broad and rough concepts. If you try to draw clear lines between them, you get the peoblem that's currently occuring.
"Chaos is the idea that a character is more inclined to do what's currently feeling right and feels less need to follow philosophical and legal codes other people have set up. Many chaotic characters have great trust in their intuition and often feel free to adjust their oppinions as the situation changes. People in which such traits or similar ones are a dominant part of their personalty are usualy of chaotic alignments."
And I think I wouldn't say much more to that. There's no measurment or checklists for alignment. You just take a look at their actions and believes and make a guess by rule of thumb. For NPCs that's perfectly okay and when it comes to PCs, you can let players keep their characters alignment until their words and actions leves really no amount of doubt and you simply have to enforce that certain alignment-sensitive effects affect the character or not.
-Is loyalty to friends a nonchaotic trait?
-Is ignoring the "rules of others" chaotic when you have a reason besides free-spirited spite?-How about theft (ignoring 'the law' for a second)?
-If your behavior is rigid and inflexible but favors chaotic acts (ex., you consistantly break human laws, you feel obligated to do so, they offend you), is that a point 'against' or 'for'?
-Along those lines, is there such thing as a chaotic code? What happens when you try to follow it?
Just off the top of my head.
Going into somewhat greater details ("Law = law" is the biggest issue) wouldn't hurt, I don't think, as long as it kept the loose language and reinforce that one lawful act or tendency doesn't make you non-chaotic.
I agree with your evaluation of how alignment should be handled. In fact, I wish your point of view was somewhat better emphasized in the book. My intent isn't for it to be more constraining, just more specific.
It is my opinion that alignments be completely eradicated and replaced with "motivations" and "personality" and perhaps some "personal goals". Doing this does involve some well thought out backgrounds and character descriptions as well as opening up lots of role-playing opportunities...
and it models "actuality" accurately...
...
...that alignments be completely eradicated and replaced with "motivations" and ...
...
Didn't read the thread, huh?... replaced ...
Why does that bother you so much?
And, no, I didn't read the entire thread...but I would have gave my opinion irregardless...Did I do something wrong?
I know I am new here, but these forums are really confusing me. I have been called a troll for agreeing with something a poster said... and now this...
Can someone help me out here...?
Alright, alright.
I was there in that other thread by the way, and I believe the poster in question appologized.
But the OP was essentially saying that 4th edition was more patriotic than Pathfinder because the Pathfinder rulebooks were published in China (in a "People's Liberation Army sweatchop", if I remember correctly). It made for a pretty inflamatory atmoshere, so I hope you can forgive whoever it was who called you a troll for quoting and seconding the OP.
Back on topic,
Alignment doesn't and shouldn't "replace" motivation or personality. LIke, ever. It is a passive label that is applied to characters who should already have robust and believable personalities long before you get around to deciding their alignment.
I could tell you hadn't read the thread because this has been stated countless times by myself and others, and I had grown tired of restating it. That's not really your fault though, it just happens on derisive issues, and I didn't mean to make you feel unwelcome in the thread.
You're allowed to have whatever opinion you want, but it is more constructive when you defend it intelligently, which means addressing those who have already found fault with your opinion, then (preferably) offering counter-arguements to carry the debate forward.
Welcome, by the way. I haven't been here long enough myself to recognize new posters, or I might have said it earlier. :)
Am I the only one who objects to Jayne being characterized as chaotic evil?
:)
I've posted my promised re-write here. I hope you guys like it. Now to go do all the work I put off to work on it.
[1]-Is loyalty to friends a nonchaotic trait?
[2]-Is ignoring the "rules of others" chaotic when you have a reason besides free-spirited spite?
[3]-How about theft (ignoring 'the law' for a second)?
[4]-If your behavior is rigid and inflexible but favors chaotic acts (ex., you consistantly break human laws, you feel obligated to do so, they offend you), is that a point 'against' or 'for'?
[5]-Along those lines, is there such thing as a chaotic code? What happens when you try to follow it?
1: No, it's alignment-neutral.
2: No, there can be "lawful" reasons.3: Breaking the laws is not contrary to being orderly and following a code.
4: The mentioned acts are "illegal" but not chaotic.
5: Chaotic people and groups might formulate principles about their ethic belives, but [u]usually[/u] interpret and re-formulate them as situations change.
But that's my point. Many people mistake "Order" for "Legal rules", and thats not what "Law" is about.
Also, I belive that alignment works best, if you remove the notion, that there are evil or chaotic acts. An act is never of any consequence to alignment. If you do consciously an act, that is considered evil, you would have to be evil to consider doing and performing the act. And if someone stops your hand at the very last second, it doesn't change the fact that you would have done it.
Alignment works best on a large scale. If you go into details, it fails to work.
[1]-Is loyalty to friends a nonchaotic trait?
[2]-Is ignoring the "rules of others" chaotic when you have a reason besides free-spirited spite?
[3]-How about theft (ignoring 'the law' for a second)?
[4]-If your behavior is rigid and inflexible but favors chaotic acts (ex., you consistantly break human laws, you feel obligated to do so, they offend you), is that a point 'against' or 'for'?
[5]-Along those lines, is there such thing as a chaotic code? What happens when you try to follow it?1: No, it's alignment-neutral.
2: No, there can be "lawful" reasons.
3: Breaking the laws is not contrary to being orderly and following a code.
4: The mentioned acts are "illegal" but not chaotic.
5: Chaotic people and groups might formulate principles about their ethic belives, but [u]usually[/u] interpret and re-formulate them as situations change.But that's my point. Many people mistake "Order" for "Legal rules", and thats not what "Law" is about.
Also, I belive that alignment works best, if you remove the notion, that there are evil or chaotic acts. An act is never of any consequence to alignment. If you do consciously an act, that is considered evil, you would have to be evil to consider doing and performing the act. And if someone stops your hand at the very last second, it doesn't change the fact that you would have done it.
Alignment works best on a large scale. If you go into details, it fails to work.
While most of us agree that Law does not equal law, there are still many who think that local law has at least partial bearing on ethical alignment (i.e, breaking the law for Lawful reasons isn't a chaotic trait, but nor is it lawful).
And I know that a -lot- of people rule that your choices (not just thoughts, and also not just end results, but the consequences of things you consciously choose to do) are the one and only determinant of alignment. That Miko thought she was in the right when she killed Shinjo (to reference some D&D pop culture) doesn't mean it wasn't evil.
See how much more complicated this can get?
As I've said several times, I don't mind if the Pathfinder alignment principles aren't the same as mine, as long as they give me a consistant base. You can't clear up every niggling detail of the debate but just going into a little farther detail on what the core books intended would, I think, help a lot.
I always considered Alignments something objective to the game world.
Since all those Gods and Outsiders relate to them, they just must be.
So we NEED a clear definition about what qualifies each alignment.
They HAVE to be distinct and differentiate.
If you start defining alignments from a subjective point of view and find reasons to justicate nearly every action for being in tune with each alignment the whole system is worthless.
But maybe this is impossible.
If so, True20 might have gone the better way with their vices and virtues.